Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC

Background

Habib Miah, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC and Eaton Vance Management International Ltd. He alleged that the defendants improperly withdrew an employment offer. His claims included breach of contract, corporate negligence, and reputational harm.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Miah moved for permission to amend it. United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo recommended granting dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denying leave to amend. The recommendation concluded that Miah and Morgan Stanley were aliens for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, so diversity jurisdiction was defeated because an alien appeared on both sides of the case.

Miah objected to the recommendation and also sought to shift the evidentiary burden, obtain jurisdictional discovery, and apply additional legal tests. He later filed further objections without the court’s permission.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed Miah’s objections under the clear-error standard because they did not identify specific findings in the recommendation or provide supporting legal authority. The court noted that Miah had acknowledged the governing principle that aliens on both sides of a case destroy diversity jurisdiction. Miah also did not dispute the facts that he was an alien and that Morgan Stanley was an alien. Instead, he argued that jurisdictional discovery might show that at least one alien defendant also had non-alien citizenship.

The court found no clear error in Judge Ricardo’s analysis. It agreed that adding a non-alien defendant could not create diversity jurisdiction while an alien defendant remained in the case opposite an alien plaintiff. The court also concluded that Miah’s latest objection was not properly before it because it was filed more than a month after the recommendation and after the defendants’ response.

Ruling

Judge Engelmayer adopted the recommendation in full. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied Miah’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice to Miah’s right to pursue his claims in a court of competent jurisdiction.

The court further concluded that Miah had not made the required substantial showing of denial of a federal right for appellate review and certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Fee-free appeal status was therefore denied for purposes of an appeal.